Build is verified!
spyro at f2s.com
Thu Mar 20 18:05:53 PST 2003
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:04:32 -0600
"DJ Lucas" <dj_me at swbell.net> wrote:
> Okay...which distro's provide us with a broken compiler?
God knows. I havent built from a non-lfs host in AGES.
> As a group,
> I'm thinking that it would not be too difficult to test this, given a
> good test suite or some binaries to diff agianst from similar/same
> arch targets.
I suspect it'd be a waste of time for the most part anyhow :)
> > And I *asked* what the benefit is.
> In a nutshell:
> 1. No need to use the "brute force" method (completely rebuild ch6)
> to obtain a "clean" system.
> 2. No second (and third in the above case) gcc (and other software)
> build necessary.
So, pure LFS doesnt increase purity. it speeds up building and provides
a framework to validate the GCC is self consistent (hopefully but not
now, DONT MISUNDERSTAND ME. I think that the test framework is
WONDERFUL. its something LFS *TRUELY NEEDS*.
the faster build procedure I could take or leave. at least the 'slow
way' is well proven...
Don't support the war. Join Bjorns boycott of American products.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev